Aristotle and Locke on revolution.pdf

8/11/2019 Aristotle and Locke on revolution.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aristotle-and-locke-on-revolutionpdf 1/22

niversity of tah

Aristotle's Theory of Revolution: Looking at the Lockean SideAuthor(s): Leslie Friedman GoldsteinSource: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 311-331Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of UtahStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/449159 .

Accessed: 06/06/2014 05:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and University of Utah are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Political Research Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 2 00.16.5.202 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:41:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah

http://www.jstor.org/stable/449159?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/449159?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



Aristotle's heory f Revolution:Looking t the Lockean Side

LESLIEFRIEDMANGOLDSTEIN,UNIVERSITYF DELAWARE

This rticle rovides detailedccount f he heoryfrevolutionre-sentednBooksV-VIfAristotle'soliticsnd rgueshat espitempor-tant ifferencesf emphasis,hetoric,nd tone, heres a surprisingdegreef imilarityo he heoryf evolutionamiliaroAmericansromJohn ocke's econd reatise fGovernment.ristotle nd Locke hare heviews hat overnmentsust void ppressingheir ubjectsf hey reto avoid eing verthrown,hat evolutiongainst ppressiveulerssinevitable,hat ecurity or roperty ould ave central lacen theavoidancef ppression,nd hat he uccumbingo he emptationsfpower n he art f ulingroupssthe undamentalrovocationf ev-olution. his spect fAristotle'soliticalhoughtasbeen ittle oticed,but san mportantimensionf t.Moreover,tprovidescertain epthof nsightnto hat ide f Locke'shoughthatmost harply ontrastswith obbes'shought,amelyocke'sistrustf he orruptingorcefpoliticalower.

In Books V-VI f Politics ristotle upplemented heSocratic ptions orstemming buses f political ower-the teaching fmoderation nd the uringofpotential yrants oward hilosophy-by nvoking he owbut olid ground f

the rulers' elf-interestn staying n power. he core premises f heAristotelianteaching n sedition re essentially crime oesn't ay tory or ulers. hesepremises ere hen vailable or ocke'smuch ater laboration hen he-likeAristotle uspicious f the orrupting orce f political ower-needed n alter-native o Hobbes's bsolutist olitical onclusions.

This laim bout he ore f Aristotle'seaching n sedition heds ignificantnew ight n Aristotle's axim hat he political heorist ust laborate otonlythebestregime or n ideal ituation ut hould lsoprovide uidance or oli-tics based on a [given] resupposition PoliticsV, 1, 1288b28-30).1Locke's

suppositionsemphaticallyhatwhat eoplewant rom olitics s the preserva-tion of their ives, iberties, nd properties. ristotle rgues n Book III that

1Translationsenerally ollow ord 1984).Where hey iffer, hey re my wn.

Poliitical esearch uarterly, ol.54 (June 001):pp. 311-331

311








Politicalesearchuarterly

peopleform heir olitical ssociation or he good ife, life f happiness, rhuman lourishing. appiness equires hat eople fgoodcharacter e formed.But t turns ut n Books V-VI hat,while few remotivated y the desire orhonor,most eoplemost f he ime re motivated yconcern or heir ropertyand their hysical ignity nd security enuinely oodpeople,who have thedesire nd capacity o serve he publicgood,rarely oldpolitical ower. venwhen hey o hold power, heir ppetites nd passions pen them o being or-rupted f egal nstitutions re not structured n such a wayas to check heirpower III, 3: 1287a31-32).Consequently,he given upposition ypicallynplay nAristotle's rescriptions or eal-worldoliticsmay e not o far rom heworld hat ocke describes.

Theargument ere oes not rely n a view hat ohn ockewassome ort flatter-day homist, ho ike t. Thomas ook isbearings rom law ofnature hatamounted o an adaptation f the concept f natural ustice, r whatwasrightaccordingonature, oundnAristotle.2othe ontrary, ne can take s a point fdeparture hat: It s on the asis f Hobbes's iew f he aw of nature hat ockeopposesHobbes's onclusions. e tries o how hat obbes's rinciple-the ightof elf-preservation-farrom avoringbsolute overnment,equiresimited ov-ernment Strauss 953:231-32;for similar iew ee also Cox 1960 and 1982;Macpherson 962;Goldwin 987;M. Zuckert 994: 234-237 and 240;but cf.Grant 987;Simmons' 993,and the preponderancef Locke cholarship itedtherein or he view that Locke's tate f nature iffers adically rom hat fHobbes).Whatever ay eLocke's imilarities ithHobbes,t snonethelesslearthat hose fLocke's conclusions hat mount o his theory frevolution penly,deliberately,nd directly pposedHobbes's iew ondemning evolutionaryesist-ance o oppressive overnmentasexpressed,.g., n Leviathan,h.20).

It is the argument f this rticle hat most f the corepremises f Locke'stheory frevolutionrepresent nAristotle'solitical ritings. he ole exceptionto this laim, lbeit n important xception,s Locke's rounding f the right frevolutionn the hetoric fpre-politicalnalienableights;uchrhetoric sabsentin Aristotle. he claim s not that ocke ookhis premises irectly rom risto-tle-this article s not biographicalxercise.3 ather t s an essay n Aristotle'spolitical hought, n essay n the pirit f he rgument f Gadamer1975:espe-

2 Cf.Barker1962)lxi-lxii.3 Asa strictly istorical atter, hile ockemay n fact ave dapted oth his rhetorical pproach

and the ubstance fhis ustification frevolution rom ome f he hings ristotle ays, here renumerous onceivablelternative ources f nfluence hat ntervened n the wo thousand earsthat eparate he wo men,which lso mayhavehelped oshapeLocke's hinking n a popularright f evolution.hese ange rom oman heories fpopular ontrol ver he mperor, ofeudaltheories f imits n kingship, o church overnanceheories fboth he onciliaristsnd monar-chomachs, o common aw traditions see, e.g., Procop? 1988;Nelson1988;Dunbabin1988;Black1988;Vincent 987,ch.3;Myers 982 and the numerous ources ited herein).

312








Aristotle'sheory fRevolution

cially 35-40,258-67, 82-85; ee also Yack 1993:18-21)that ne cannot elpbut view he hought f philosophers f the past hrough prism haped y thelater hilosophicradition fwhich ne s aware, ndbywhich ne's wn houghthas to some degree een nfluenced. ockedepicted n stark nd striking onesthe nevitabilitynd ustness f evolutionaryesistanceotyranny; he larity ndstarkness f Locke's nalysis enderedt moredifficult, erhaps, or ost-Lockegenerationsodiscern hemoremuted tatements long imilar ines n Aristotle.

Theargument ere s that here s muchmore f the Lockeann Aristotle'spolitical hought, speciallyn Books Vthrough I of Politics,han s generallyrecognized.4t s at eastpossible hat ocke did find large art f his nspira-tion directly n Aristotle's ritings, lthough hat s not the point.Thepoint sthat highlighting f these ather muted ocken hemes n Aristotle's heory frevolution ill helpbring nto learer ocus ertain ther mportant lements fAristotle'sverall olitical hilosophy.

Granted, he discussion f revolution s Aristotle resents t contrastssharply ith ocke's pproach, t east t first lance. ocke sseeking n answerto the uestionwhether eason, mployed s a tool o serve henatural mpulseto comfortable elf-preservation,uggests hat here must e limits n the powerof government, nd, f so, what mechanism an enforce hose imits? ristotleaddresses different uestion: ow can existing overnment tave ff he edi-tion hat s the prelude orevolution, nd thereby evolutiontself?5 etdespitethedifferencen the formal ocus f heir espectiveuestions, here s a surpris-ingdegree f ubstantive imilarity f content n the nswers hey enerate.

Asa prelude o this xercise f recovering ristotle'seaching n revolution,this ssay, irst, utlines he ore premises fJohn ocke's heory f revolution.Next t describes he sense nd extent o which hese premises re present nAristotle's olitics. he essayconcludeswith n elaboration f the claimthatattention o this under-explored spect of Aristotle's hought nriches ne'sunderstanding fbothAristotle nd of Locke.

PRELUDE:LOCKE'STHEORY OF REVOLUTION

SummaryLocke's heory f revolution s at once normative nd descriptive, nd is a

story amiliaro mostAmericans: overnments xist or hepurpose f ecuring

4 This s not, owever, claim hat ocke's otion f rights s rooted nAristotle,f.Miller 995,1996.5 Aristotle lso addresses roader uestions f how to stave ff olitical hange enerally-not ust

sedition nd revolution-but is answer o this eneral uestion s undercut ymany f his rec-ommendationsoncerning he pecific uestion fhowto stave ff evolution. pecifically,erec-ommends hat njust egimes hould e reformedto stave ff evolution).ince eforms a kindof political hange, his pecific dviceundercuts hepurported dvice gainst egime hange ngeneral. hisundercutting ppears obe intentional.

313








PoliticalesearchQuarterly

to each member fociety is6

ife,iberty

and estate. umans ave hempulseof elf-preservations a matter fnature nd therefore he mpulse sGod-given.

Liberty nd property s the means of preservation lso belong oindividuals,therefore, s a matter fGod-given atural ights. uthumans- the reater artno strict bservers f equity nd ustice -have wayof beingbiasedby self-interest n udging onflicts verwhere heir roperty nds nd another's egins.Therefore, ithout overnment, eoplewould be exposed o continual an-gers ; heir ives, reedomnd possessions,very nsafe, ery nsecure para.123).So men ompact, achwith veryone, o form society here hey greeto

putall their orces

ogethernder

governmenthoseform ill be chosen

by the majority. his government ill provide lear rules a settled, nownlaw ), ndependentudgesfor isputes, nd an executive orce o back up udg-ments. he power f this government ust ogically e limited y the end forwhich t wasformed-preservation f he ives, iberties, nd fortunes f he oci-ety.7f he people ngovernmentver etout to attack hese hings, hich ockelikes o call collectivelyhe property f the members f society, t no longermakes ense o think f these eople s the government. heyhave bandonedthe ob withwhich heywere ntrusted, nd they hould, nd will, e fought sthe

publicnemies

heyave hown hemselves obe.

Theyhave ntroduced

state f war against heir ormer ellow-citizensy using force ithout ight(para.232).Between uch tyrannical ulers nd the ociety hey aveattackedthere xists erforce state f nature, ecause ny woparties ho do not harean agreed-uponudge are n such a condition. nd n this ondition veryonehas the right f nature, hich s to say, heright f self-defense.o revolutionagainst yrannical overnments by nature ight, hether hegovernment e asingle rince, select ew, r a legislatureomprised f lected epresentativesfthemajority.8

6 Lockewrites epeatedlyf he unitingnto ommonwealths s something hat men o. See, .g.,Second reatise,ara. 24.Hereafter, eferencesothe econd Treatise illgive imply he aragraphnumber.

7 Individualmembers f society ach oin and consent ogovernment ith private oals, ach tosecurehis own comfortableelf-preservation.ut oncesociety asbeen formed, he ob of gov-ernment ecomes he ecuring f the ives, iberty nd possessions f the ociety s a whole, npeaceandsafety, nd the protection f ach ndividual ember ecomes secondary onsideration(para. 129, 131, 134, 217). It s to be pursued nly as far s will consistwith he publicgood(para.134).

8 Lockedoes write hat ny form f government oneor many )might ehave yrannicallypara.201).However, e-unlike Aristotle--does otreally iscuss he possibility hat direct emoc-racywouldbehave yrannicallyoward hose utside f government,.e., outside he majoritybelieve his s becauseLocke's heory f revolution as no solution or uch tyranny. is theorywoulddefine t as tyranny, ut unlike ll other ersions f tyranny, t cannot e kept n checkbythe fear f a successful evolution y the oppressedmajorityWithout ppression f the majorforce n a community, r at least well-grounded ear hat he oppression hreatens o reach

314









OperationalremisesLocke's perational heory f revolution, hat s, his theory s a matter f

observable ractice, fhow,when nd why evolutionccurs s as follows:1. Inevitability:umannature eingwhat t s, f government ngages n a

long rain f actions hat ither ttack he ives, reedom, r property f themajority f the people, r are suchthat he precedent nd consequenceseemto threaten ll, t s inevitable hat he peoplewillfight ack gainst hegovern-ment hat s attacking hem on longtrain f abuses, eepara. 168, 205, 209,

210,225,230;on inevitability,eealsopara.94, 149, 224; First etter n Tol-eration, t pp. 53-54.)Peoplethreatened y severemisrule cannot ut feelwhat hey ie under para.225),and the natural esponse o collective hreat scollectiveelf-defense.

2. As a corollary oinevitability,t follows hat ttempts t deceptionf themass f he eoplebout he act f heir ppressionannot ucceedn taving ff evo-lution. [T]alk ... hinders men not from eeling.

[W]hen hepeople re made miserable.. cry p their overnors, s much syouwill or ons f upiter,et hem e acred nddivine, escendedr uthor-izedfrom eaven; ive hem utforwhom rwhat ouplease he amewillhappen. he eopleenerallyll reated,nd ontraryoright, ill eready ponany ccasion o ease themselves f burden hat itsheavy pon hem..(para.224;ocke'stalics).

3. As a generalmatter, ppressionsf few hat re not een s threats othemany onot rovokeevolution;evolutionsreprovokednly hen he ominant orcein a community-the ajority-feels hreatened:ecauserevolution rises s anexpression f the natural mpulse oself-preservationwhich ncludes he natu-

ral mpulse o retain he iberty nd material cquisitions hat acilitatereserva-tion), n isolated, ppressedminority nable o persuade majority hat t toofaces hethreat f oppression illnot normally, .e.,not rationally, ttempt noverthrow f government, ecause o do so willbe suicidal, nd therefore on-trary otheir atural mpulsespara. 08;see also 161, 168,209, 223, 225,230).

Indeed, venthe majority s pronenot to stir without ubstantial rovoca-tion; nly long rain f buses uffices obreak hrough heir nertia; evolution,after ll entails ubstantial isk-would-be erpetrators eed to be convincedthat n attempt s worth he trouble nd cost para.176).9

majority ventually,here annot e rational opefor victorious evolution,o the minority or-mallywill imply ndure heir ppression. ocke's heory oes not offer ffectual rotection orminority ightsapart rom he olace hatGodand nature re n principle n their ide.)

9 My ttention as drawn o this assage y Grant 1987: 167).

315









At this point divergence risesbetween ocke's heory f what s rightaccording o nature nd what appens sa matter f he normal atterns fwhatmight e calledbrute ature r mere ature. Many egimes hat epriveminori-ties f what s ustly, r by nature, heir ight, illnonetheless, ccording o thelogic fbrute ature, ndure.10

Despite remise , however, ockedoesadmit hat omefactious eopleonoccasion avebehaved rrationally:

4. Contrary o he atural attern, ometimesxceptionsooccur,nwhichxcep-tionallymbitiousrprideful en tir p editiono he oint f great isorder ocke

grant[s]hat he ride, mbition, nd turbulency fprivatemenhave ometimes

causedgreat isordersn commonwealths,nd factions avebeenfatal o statesandkingdoms para. 30).Buthe suggests hat action asmore ften een rig-gered y the ulers'nsolence,nd endeavors oget, nd exercise n arbitrarypower ver heir eople hanby a desire n the peopleto cast off he awfulauthority f heir ulers para.226, 230; Locke'stalics). hus, womore rem-isesarethese:

5. Thosewhohold overnmentalower re more ikely oprovokeeditionndrevolutiony yrannical ehaviorhan re the uled o ngagenunprovoked,r even

slightlyrovokededition. his s true ecause:

6. Power as corruptingnfluence.

[T]hey ho re npowerby he retencehey ave o uthority,he empta-tion f orce hey aven heir ands,nd he latteryf hose bout hem)are]likeliesto provokeevolution];he roperest ay opreventhe vil s to howthem he angernd njusticef twho re nder he reatestemptationoruninto t para. 26; ee lso 1-93, 11, 37, 18).

7. The final lause of this uotation ields henextpremise: he best ence

against ebellion hat political heoristanprovides to persuade ulers not heirtoo-oftenut-uponubjects)omend heir ays, ywarning hemhat ppressiveov-ernment s what auses revolutionpara. 226).11Rulersneed to temper heirinsolence nd greed,which re ikely obe aggravated y the temptations fpower. The stimulus o such self-reform an be provided y an awareness,offered y the political heorist, ocke, hat uch restraint illenable heir ule

10Thiswould eem o be an utterly traightforwardeading f he paragraphs ited t Premise , but

a number f Locke cholars ispute t. For a discussion f the debate, ee citations nd analysisthereof n Simmons 993: 172-77.1Cf.Tarcov1981)whoargues hat he best ence, n Locke's iew, s an alert ppositional olit-

ical leadership ho will alert he citizenry bout a build-up f princely ower ending owardtyranny n my udgment, arcov'snterpretation elies n readingmore nto para. 242 than sreally here nd gives oo ittle ttention o Locke's ctual escription f he enefit fhis teachingon revolution n para.226.

316









to last and peaceand prosperity hereby oprevail). ocke s putting orth isteaching n revolution, this octrine, s the robablest eans ohinder rebel-lion]. The rebellion n question s tyrannical ehavior y the ruler hat e-introduces he tate f war.

Locke's hetoricalmphasis soverwhelminglyddressed othehuman as-sionofgreed; hushe repeatedly arns hat:

8. What ulers eed orefrain rom ttackingsthe property f heir ubjects.12Moreover, e advises hem hat the ncrease f ands nd the ight mploying fthem i.e.,bydevelopingn ncentive tructure hat ncouragesndustriousness]is the great rt f government para.42).WhileLocke learly ndicates hat eusesthe erm property o nclude life, iberty ndestate, is hoice f his ic-tion nevitably nderlines, sa practical atter, eople's oncerns ith heir wnmaterial ossessions.

9. Rulers eedfulfLocke aneasily voidhaving editiousubjects, ecausepopulaceontentedy ecurityor heirives nd property ill ethe ulers' trongestbulwarkgainst he are, mbitious inorityaction. isdeeds y rulers hort fdirect ttack n the ives, iberty r estates f he general ublic renot ikely oprovoke edition. ndeed, ven minorityustifiedn hostility othegovernmentwill ot asily ngage .. in a contest, herein hey re ure operish; t being

as impossible or neor a few ppressedmen odisturb he government, herethe bodyof the peopledo not think hemselvesoncerned n it, s for ravingmadman, r headymalcontent ooverturn well-settledtate; hepeoplebeingas little pt to follow he ne as the other para.208;italics mitted).

Thecombination f Premises , 4, 5, 7, and 9 yields hefollowing: ocke'smessageconcerning he occasional reality f factious ehavior by headymalcontents ppears obe that, while uch behavior an sometimes each hepoint f ausing great isorder theunfortunate eality eing hat ome humanbeings nstead f following eason re quarrelsomend contentious, ara.34),the efforts f these mbitious ew re not ikely oprove fatal o states ndkingdoms nless he people t arge avebeen eriously ggrieved ytheir ov-ernment. hus,Locke's verallmessage n revolution s that he primary auseof rebellion s overreaching n the part f those n power. he temptations fpower nd ts orrupting orcenunleashing hegreed frulers re theproblemsthat olitical heory ansuccessfullyddress: heway oguard gainst epreda-tions y governing uthorities s to alert hem o their wn self-interest, ithclearwarning hat evere mistreatment f the publicwillbackfire y provokingsuccessful evolution.

12 Thedifficulty f figuring ut howto keeprulers rom sing heir olitical ower oenrich hem-selves t the xpense f heir ubjects s a problem s oldaspolitical hilosophy tself. ee Plato'sRepublic17a6-b3.

317









ARISTOTLE'SHEORY F REVOLUTION

Aristotle'sremises

Although ristotle akes he point n termsmore measured han Locke'srallying ry, [Thepeople] annot ut feel what hey ieunder, premise loseto that f the nevitabilityf editiousverthrowf yrannicalegimesPremise#1above)does ppear nPolitics.remise nAristotle'sharacteristically ore au-tious endition omes ut s: It s difficult or regime o ast f ts onstitutionis contrary o ustice VII, 13: 1332b28-29).13He underlines hispoint by

insistinghat he east

ust regimes-self-interested ligarchiesnd

tyrannies-are the hortest-lived. hosetyrannies hat re believed o have asted ven slong as seventeen earswere, trictly peaking, ot tyrannies. he so-calledtyrants n each of them see examples t V, 12: 1315b12-33)actually ervedmore s constitutional onarchs r popular eaders, ither utting hemselvesunder he rule f aw, r ruling n sucha way s to please hepopulace n suchways s exemplary ublic ervicenwarfare, cts f oncern or he public ood,and moderate ule.Thus,Aristotles able to conclude, Most versions f] yran-nies [i.e.,those hat eallywarrant he abel]have all been completely hort-lived

V,12:1316b

38-39).LikeLocke,Aristotle lso warns otentially ppressive ulers hat heywillnot be able to fool ll of hepeople ll of he ime.While genuinely ell-man-agedregime in terms f he range f he practicable) ouldplease ll segmentsof the community nd thus would be altogether ree f seditious action II,9:1270b21-22; I, 12: 1274a15-21; II, 11: 1281b28-34; V, : 1294b34-40;VI,5: 1320a15-16), osurvive n the ense of avoiding successfuledition,regimemust t leastpleasethe trongest lements f the community,ts domi-nant orcesIV,13:1297b5-10; V, 12: 1296b14-16;V,9: 1309b16-18;VI,7:1320b

26-28).Strength,or

Aristotle,s measured s a blend of the

trengthf

13 My asewouldbe easier f his assage ctually ead s it s rendered n theJonathan arnes evi-sionofBenjamin owett'sranslationf hePoliticsEverson, d. 1988: 176).There t s rendered:Nogovernmentan tandwhich s not founded pon ustice. utAristotle oesdescribe he ur-

vival hances f an unjust egime s difficult chalepon)ather han iterallympossible.n myview, ncidentally,his assage, ogether ith he entence hat ollows t, ndicates ristotle's iewthat ustice oesprevail n the Bk.VII-VIIICityAccording-to-Prayer,.e.,that ity orwhich newouldwish nce oneunderstood hat s best imply III, 18; V, ; VII, 4: 1325b37).(But f. hearguments f C. Zuckert 1983];Nichols 1992: 144-45];Yack [1993: 168-69];and Annas

[1996].)Therefore, here re no un-natural laves n it. Allhave citizen ights xcept esidentaliensplusnatural laves lus foreign erfs presumably hose acking dequate humosoobjectto being uled, nd who would be working oluntarilyn the City f Prayer, or ule overfreeothers ho submit nly nvoluntarily s tyrannical;eeVII,7: 1327b25-30.Thesegroupswoulddo allthe vulgar ecessary ork. n this eading, agreewithMiller1995: 240-41)and disagreewith he ssertion fCooper 1996: 867n.)thatAristotle canhardly ave eriouslyntended hat

. all the native-born ree ersons. . should xercise ights f itizenship.

318









numbers nd quality Bk. IV, h. 12). Numbers an be a source f politicalpower, ut o can the political kills ained hrough education, r the respectaccorded o somepeoplebecause f their goodbirth nto families evered orhaving ontributed o the publicweal.Aristotle lso ncludes wealth n hiscal-culusofpolitical ower. Owners f wealthy states otonly an afford hebestmilitary quipment, ut ould lso hire mercenariesV, : 1306a21-23)or per-hapsmore ikely) cquire egions f followers ygiving ut obs on their states(VI,5: 1320b8-9).

Tobe sure, ockedoesnot discuss t any ength he elevance or evolutionofdifferencesfpolitical ower ttainable ithin ivil ociety, nd ndeed own-plays hemby his frequent efrain, Thepeopleshall be judge. However,recognition fdifferencesfpoliticalnfluence ithin ivil ociety oesnot on-tradict nything n Locke's heory. oreover, ristotle imself,n a sense,warnsof the future ppropriateness f thinking n terms f the people s the ultimatejudge,for e predicts longbefore he niversal revalencef mperial r nation-basedstates), Nowthat t has happened hat ities ave become ven arger, tis perhaps or lternatively,robably:sos]no longer asy for nyregime o ariseother han democracy III, 15: 1286b19-20).But ven utside fdemocracy,government annot fford o gnore heforce f numbers; ven n an oligarchy,if t treats he multitude njustly, ristotle arns, ny eaderwouldbe adequateto guide successful evoltV, : 1305a38-41).

Aristotle,n considering owrulers hould lease hedominant lements fthe community, ocusesmore han Lockedoeson the question f who shouldshare he prerogativesf political ffice, s distinguished rom olicy utcomesper e,although edoesnot entirely gnore he atter e.g.VI,5: 1320a34-40).This mphasis eems obebecausehe sees his udience s primarily legislators,or founders ho are devising political rameworkfter omeregime asbeenoverthrown.This oncern sparticularlypparent n Bk. V, h. 2, nd n Bk.VI,ch.5.)Still, t does make ense o expect hat articipationn rulewillyield omesharing f the benefits f rule, nd the absence f participation, consequentabsence f benefits. ndeed,Aristotle akes hispoint xplicitly: onstitutionsthat o not have n adequate mount f power-sharingn their nitial tructure,he writes, rebound oproduce ad [policy]n the nd V,1: 1302a5-8).

AndAristotle,ikeLocke,warns gainst overnmental eception hat imsat exclusion f hegeneral opulace. Hespecificallyingles ut for riticism on-stitutional evices hat im to give he llusion f a popular ay n governmentbut re rigged oassure redominancey hewealthy,nsisting hat in ime romthings alsely oodtheremust esult true vil IV,12:1297a12; he ist f uchdevices ollowsn V,13;he repeats hepoint t V, :1308a2-3).This tatementthat, ooner r ater, he ruth ill ut when t comes ogovernment ppression,amounts o Aristotle's ndorsement f Premise : In the ong un, eceptionf hepeople annot tave ff evolutionf overnmentasbecomeyrannical.

319









Aristotle lsoagreeswith ocke hat f only few re treated njustly, heywillnot be able to overthrow government, s long s that overnment ontin-ues to please hepreponderant lementsn the ommunityV,1:1301a39-b2;V,4: 1304b2-5).Thus,Premise : Generallypeaking, f he njustly reatedre atinyminoritywithouthe ackingf n aggrievedublic) hey illnot evolt. hoseregimesastwhere he governing ody reats ell the peopleoutside herulinggroup, or hese egimesack n aggrieved ublic V, : 1308a4-10).

Aristotle ives armore ttention han oesLocke othe th Premise: xcep-tionallymbitious inorities anonoccasiontir pseditionothe oint f reat is-order. n BookV especially, ristotle wells t great ength pon the variousdetails f a grand ariety f seditious verthrows r attempted verthrows frulers rom rior istory. he basic source f thesewasa perception f unfair-ness.Sometimes,s in Locke'sater heory, hefelt rievance ason the part fthe ommon eople,when heir roperty asattacked IV,13: 1297b5-8;V,8:1308a8-9, 1308b32-1309a9; VI,4: 1318b 14-20),but not lways.Aristotle'sdescription nd theory f revolution ivesmuchgreater rominence handoesLocketo the seditions riggered y a sentiment f frustrated mbition r ofoffended ignity including exualdignity) n the part of would-be ulers-those ockedubbed headymalcontents. hese mbitious eaders, ypicallyfthe wealthy lasses, ut ometimes rom hemilitary r naval ranks, an end upstrong nough to overpower he elements upportive f the regime artlybecause he ruling roups reated egments f the population njustly ut alsopartly ecause he tiny ity-states f the ncient worldwerefar ess capableofdefending gainst oupsthan argenation-states ameto be.14t is conceivablethat hereason ocke's heory f revolution ould ook so different rom risto-tle's s that he argeness fkingdoms nd evenprincipalitiesn Locke's ayren-deredmuch ess frequent viable hreat f urbulence rom n ambitious ew, scomparedwith he polisof fourth-century-BC reece. till, ven n Aristotle'sdescription, remise is meant o convey hemore eneral icture: f mbitiousleaders annot ap nto ome egree fperceivednjustice ypowerful egmentsof the ommunity, heywillnot have nough ollowerso succeed n their oupor revolution. Incidentally, ristotle howsmore respect hanLocke does forthose ealots or ustice- very ew n number ut not unknown ohistory-who,motivated rimarily ya desire o do a noble hing, ed ost auses gainstbad governmentV, 0: 1312a4-39].)

14Aristotle nderstood hat igness ould nhance tability. e argued hat his nhancement ouldcome bout by expansion f the middle lass, group asier or ulers okeep atisfied han reeither hevery ich r the very oor Bk. V).Heargued, owever, hat heCity f Prayer ouldnot be large n thisway, or n a large ity t s toodifficult or heruled nd rulers as they aketurns uling) orecognize achother's articular alents or overnment nd particular eeds ssubjects eing uled Bk.VII,ch.4).

320









Aristotle's ersion f Premise , that evolution inds ts ourcemore ften nunjust rovocationy ulershannunprovokededitionrom he opulace,r he uled,is thus not o prominent s in Locke, gainbecause heproblem f coupsfromambitious r outragedeaderswasmore ressingnAristotle'say.Nonetheless,tis clearly mplied n his general dvicefor voiding evolution:ny regime hatwants tability eeds to avoid the excesses hat render t unjust. Oligarchiesshould ecome omewhat emocratic n governing tructure o that heywillbeless nclined o oppress hecommon eople VI,6); democracieshould doptlaws hatmakemore ecure he property f he wealthyVI,5);tyrannies eed obecomemore kinglike, dopting he rule of law and a moderate ay of life,refraining rom ttacking ither he ommon eopleor the lite V, 11 and 12).Aristotle's dvice to tyrants s sometimesmisread because he prefaces hisadvice-the dvice hat e givesn his ownname viz., ecomemore inglikendless yrannical)-with n acknowledgmentf he details f he received isdomon howto preserve yranny--viz., etyrannical: perate hekind fregime sso-ciatedwith wentieth entury otalitarianism,eplete ith pying n the ubjects,the onstant timulation f warfare, nd prohibitions n voluntary rganizationsor private eetings mong he ubjects. t s this received isdom hat ristotleis

attemptingoreplace.

ristotlergues lainly

hat ofollow he eceived isdomis to provoke evolution.Indeed,whatmust e done s the opposite n nearlyevery ase of he hingsmentioned reviously. yrannieshat ook he yrannicalroutewere hort-lived, hile tyrants hobehave n fact ike benevolent ings,appearing ot s appropriatorsf heir ubjects' roperty ut s stewards f t willattain longer-lastingule(V,10:1313a1-V, 1:1315b10).Thesemaxims bouthowto avoid he xcesses hat mount o tyranny re the encepostsfAristotle'sbestencegainst ebellionrgument Premise ).

One also finds nAristotle n explanation or his best ence rgument hatis similar o Locke's:Premise ) Power as

corruptingnfluence.n recommend-

ing mix fdemocraticndaristocraticlements hat heck ach other, uch hatthe common eoplewould serve s electors f the most apablefor politicaloffice nd as auditor f the lected fficials, ristotle ffers hefollowingxpla-nation: [The fficials] illrule ustly ythe fact hat thers ave uthority verthe udits. or to be under onstraint nd unable to do everything ne mightresolve o do is beneficial. he icense o do whatever ne wishes annot efendagainst hebaseelement n every uman eing VI,4: 1318b38-1319a1;seealso V,14:1298b15-26; II, 16: 1287a30-31).

Premise , what ulers eed o refrain rom ttackings the property f heirsubjects, ould eem ooffer articular ifficulty or he rgument f this ssay,becauseAristotlepecificallyriticized competing olitical heorist, haleas, orbelieving hat olving heproperty roblem ould solve ll political roblems.Aristotle ointed ut n that iscussion hat here s a kind f personwho caresnot ust aboutbodily ppetites, ut who craves onor, ocietal espect, ame,

321









placen

history. '5uch

people posea much more erious hreat han

pettycrime, or hey re the potential yrants. hat hey eed snot the right mountof property, ut rather roper ducation, hichwillteachmoderation nd phi-losophy Bk. I,ch. ).Part f hat ducation, owever, s offered ight ere nPol-itics. o the xtent hat he education n the need formoderation s in part heteaching n the proper imits f political ower ontained ere, hePhaleas ri-tique s not necessarilyt odds with remise .

And, ndeed, Aristotle epeatsmore han nce the mportance f he dvicethat inks uccessful egime urvivalwith refraining rom ttacks n people's

property.he

many,ewrites, strive ore or

rofitshan or onor.

heyven

will tolerate ligarchiesnd used to tolerate yrannies,o long s rulers o nottake heir roperty r prevent hem rom orking VI,4: 1318b16-19;seealsoV, : 1308a 8-10).Aslight ariation n this warning ppears n Bk. V, h.13:Thepoor rewilling o remain ranquil venwhen hey aveno share npolitical re-rogatives, rovided o one acts hubristically oward hem or deprives hem fany of their roperty IV, 13: 1297b5-9; see alsoV, 11: 1315a 14-24)).TheGreek hubris, enerally ranslated arrogance although impson 1997]andKeyt 1999]offer he more pt, insolence )nvolves, ccording o Aristotle'sRhetoric,hedeliberate

akingf

pleasuren acts of humiliation oward thers

(Rh.1378b 3-29, s cited n Reeve1998:244).It maybe that Machiavelli adthis assagenmindwhenhe aterwrote n The rince hatwhat rdinary eoplewant rom heir overnments security or heir roperty nd protection gainsttheviolation f heir ives nd daughtersreferring o the atter s a lossof heirmen'shonor) ch.17: 67 and ch.19: 72). Machiavelli'siscussion s helpful, nany ase,for ighlightinghe inkage etween ristotle's arning gainst ubris-tic behavior y the rulers nd the ecurity or ife nd imb hatLockeclearlyincludes nder his umbrella erm property, or, er Locke, ne'sfirst atural

propertys the

propertyn one's wn

body para.27).

While t s true hat Aristotle oes advise ulers pecificallygainst njustlydepriving mbitious ocietaleaders f heir rerogativesV, : 1308a8-9),he alsomakes lear hat t s not ust the ommon eoplewho want heir roperty eftalone.Henotes hat he kinds f eaderswho come o power n oligarchies,oo,care t least s much bout the profits f office s they o about honor VI,7:1321a41-44).AndAristotledentifies overnmentalttacks n the property fthewell-offs a common rovocation or lite-led editions gainst emocracies.

Thematter fproperty s serious nough hatAristotle rites, Avery reat

thingn

every egimesto have he aws nd

managementf he est

rrangedn

such way hat t simpossible oprofit rom he political] ffices V, : 1308b

15 I realize hat am truncating ristotle'srgument ere, lurring ogether he raving or ame rhonor potentiallyncluding desire or more han ne'sfair hare f political ffices) ith hedesire or ure, r unmixed leasure. do so to avoid lengthy angent.

322









32-1309a14). He adds that preventing overnment fficials rom aking heproperty f he people r treating hem ubristically,owever,s a difficult hingto accomplish, for t does not lways urn ut that hose haring n thegovern-ingbody re the refined ort IV,13: 1297b8-10).

However nrefined ulersmay urn ut to be, they hould t least under-stand frank ppeal to their elf-interest. or this reason,Aristotle as con-structed he best ence gainst ebellionrgument, arning hem hat heir estsafeguardgainst edition ies n making heir egimemore ust.And ven f heycannothavetotal ssurance f having eadedoff edition rom very ossibleambitiouseader, n ight f the prevalence f concern or roperty mong oththe wealthy nd the ommon eople, ulers ho ecure he ives,imbs,ndprop-erty f heir ubjects illhave substantial ulwarkgainst editionedby mbitiouscompetitorsAristotle'sersion f Premise ).

Limits f heArgumentDifferencesf Thematicocus.Whereas he modem fame f Locke's econd

Treatises as awork rincipally esigned oassert right f resistance ounjustauthority, right, n the ast resort, f revolution Simmons 993:147,citing

Dunn 1984:28),no one would ssert he ame fAristotle'solitics. onethelessthe ore remises fLocke'sperational heory frevolution, hat s,ofhistheoryofwhen nd why evolutionsakeplace, re n fact resent n Aristotle'sarlierwork. t s true hat ocke's reatise s ostentatiouslyn essay hat ustifies evo-lution. uch ustifications not Aristotle'shematic ocus.However,t s in factobservably resent n Politics,f one ooks for t. The argument ere-to reiter-ate-is not claim hat ocke was n all important espects n Aristotelian. eemphatically asnot. Rather, heargument ere s that Aristotle rovides noperational heory f revolution hat ontains most of the core premises f

Locke's ater heory,ncluding ts prescriptive lement: iz. revolutions gainsttyrannical egimes re natural nd virtually nevitable, nd that hebest fenceagainst ebellions to alert would-be yrants f this perational heory o thattheywillmend heir ays, nd temper otential xcesses f he egime. hisfactdemarcates n underappreciatedspect f Aristotle's olitics,n underapprecia-tion hat his ssay spires o correct.16

16

It sperhaps mark f his nder-appreciationhat cholars ebatewhether ristotle asnaivelyover-optimisticohopethat yrannical overnments ouldheedthiswarning--compare ulgan1977:134-35with olansky 991:331-32--but comparable rgument so far s I have beenable to discover) oes not appear n the Locke cholarship. erhaps his iew of Locke s morehard-headeds attributable ohishaving iscerniblynspired ctual evolutions,uch stheAmer-ican.Thus,his warning o would-be yrants ook n teeth hat werenot o apparent n Aristo-tle'smoremuted pproach.

323









If his rgument s correct, kepticsmaywonder, hydoesAristotle nder-play he heory, ute t, s it were, yemphasizing ifferent oncerns? odefin-itive nswer s available, ut one can suggest heplausible ypothesis hatAris-totle hose o emphasize heusefulness fhis political cience or ulers lreadyin power nd for regimes lready n place (e.g., n Politics, ook IV, ch. 1),because fhis consciousnessf herelatively ecent ate f Socrates. 7

Moreover, f this argument s correct-if Aristotle's rue concern, ikeLocke's,s to prevent yrannyin thegeneral ense foppressive overnment) ywarning hat he loser overnment ets otyranny, hemore ikely evolution-ary overthrow ecomes-then many f Aristotle's rescriptions akeon newmeaning. or nstance, iscounsels hat pecificaws, ype f citizen ducation,and even he enseof ustice ppropriate n governing fficials ust e tailoredto the needs f he regime o as to preserve t V, : 1309a36-39;1309b14-17;1310a14-19),have an import hat s the opposite f how they re generallytaken.'8He is not saying hat hismeans, or nstance n an oligarchy,hat helaws nd education dopted hould e those losest o the wishes r nclinationsof the ruling ligarchs; n the contrary, hey houldbe such as to temper rrestrain hose nclinations: But obe educated elative othe egimesnot odothe things hat ligarchs r those who want democracy njoy, ut rather hethings ywhich he ormer ill be able to run n oligarchynd the atter ohavea regime hat s run democratically 1310a 19-24).And what nables n oli-garchy o continue n existence s an oligarchy, or nstance, urns ut to be thatit avoid the excessescharacteristic f oligarchy, amelyoppression f thecommon eople. ts rulers eed to learnhow to become less oligarchical norder o stay n power. omescholars ake this fact s evidence hat Aristotlestumbled nto n unwitting nconsistencyMulgan 977:136;Rowe1991:67-69;Reeve 998: xiii-lxiv),n that is prescription ormaking regime ndure sto alter he regime or he better, hichmakes t a different egime.19ut one

17 Reportedly, ristotle xplained isdeparture rom thens, neyear rior o his death rom atu-ral causeswith he remark hat e did not wantAthens o sin a second ime gainst hilosophy(Lord1984:6). Lockewas free o endorse evolutiongainst yranny ore penly ecausehewrote nder he loak f nonymityand perhaps, oo,he chose his modebecausehewas ntenton fomenting particular, mmediate evolution Ashcraft 9861).When Mulgan 1977: 136)argues hat ristotle should ave dmitted ore penly hat econsiders he[] osition of yran-nicaloligarchs, emocrats r monarchs] ntenable nd that heymust hange henature f heirrule r be overthrown, e writes s though heproblem f ocrates as no problem. ut he fact

is, Aristotle id openly dmit hese hings; esimply id not tress hem. He wrote hem, s itwere, uietly, ather han houting hem rom herooftops, r the barricades.18 Reeve1998)seems t some points oagreewithmy eading lxiv describing stable ut non-

rigid egime] nd xvii) ut t others o take hese tatements t their ace alue liii, xii, ater nlxvii).

19 Keyt, n an innovative eading, uggests hat he real mport f these assagess to render herulers f ll regimes t east aw-abiding;hatAristotle imshere o check achregime's otential

324









couldsuggest hat his s not ninconsistency.

ristotle ssimply

dvising ari-ous sovereign odies hat olitical ower has imits; ny overeign ho gnoresAristotle'sdvice nd usespolitical ffice ogratify verywhim isks osing heregime o seditious verthrow yaggrievedubjects.

Differencesf Fundamental remise: rrespective f the evidence on theauthors' heories f evolution,nemight lsoobject hat hedifferencesetweenthe respective verall olitical hilosophies f Locke nd Aristotle re so over-whelming hat ny similarity n revolution s insignificant nd misleading.Important oints f ontrast nclude, irst, hat or Aristotlet s of entral ignif-icance hat he

politicalcientistdentify hebest

egime,he

CityAccording-to-

Prayer, n order ohave standard ywhich o assessbetter nd worse Bk. II,ch.18;Bk. V, h. ;Bks.VII-VIII).orLocke, ycontrast, he ype fregime hatwillbe legitimaten anyparticular ociety s a matter foriginalmajority refer-ence-rule by one,by a select ew, nd by directmajority anequally e legiti-mate s long s the government oes not urn yrannical. s ong s it doesnot,at east acit onsent an be assumed, nd consent f hegoverneds whatmakesfor egitimate overnment. ocke's heory imsonly oguard gainst heworstexcessesTarcov 981:214-17),whileAristotle rients is theory ccording othe

polestarf he best

maginable.A secondfundamental ifference hatmight rguably ender omparisoninappropriate s that for Locke following obbes) the aims of the politicalsociety oncern he hings f the body-security or ife tself nd freedom opursue comfortableife.Aristotle, o the contrary, rgues hat eal-life olit-ical societies rr n limiting heir oncerns o such things, henwhat politi-cal societies hould o is foster xcellence f character r soul (psyche)mongthe citizenry.20However, espite hesetwo massivedifferences f orientation, ristotle

acknowledgeshat eal-life ocieties

ypically-indeed niversallyn practice-

arenot nterested nhearing hegoodcharacter essage. eople n government,including he common eople n direct emocracies, re more nterested n

deteriorationnto he xtreme f awlessness 1999: 136-142).Whilemore ttractive han hosereadings hat imply ondemn ristotle or nconsistency,eyt's eems opay nsufficient eedtothe fact hatAristotles giving dvice hat oes beyond aw-abidingness oguideregime-designitself. oreover, ristotle'spproving escription f o-called yrants ho n factmoderated heirtyrannies y putting hemselvesnder aw or by ruling n the public nterest, husrenderingthemselves monarchs ather han yrants, roperly peaking, eliesthe notion hat Aristotleopposed ll regime mprovementV,12:1315b12-33).

20 Aristotle otes hat ven parta nd similarly arlike olitical ommunitiesrr n fostering nlypart fvirtue, ilitary ourage, ather han hewhole f t, nd also because hey alue hegoodsthat re ttainable hrough onquestmore ighly han he virtue nvolvednacquiring hegoods(Bk. I, ch.9: 1271a42-1271b11;see alsoVII,ch.2: 1324b3-38; VII, 14: 1333a37-1334a10;VIII,4: 1338b9-38).

325









maintainingheir wn power han nanybetterment f heir ouls VI,4: 1318b

2-5). And what peoplegenerally eek s property; hecommonmany preferprofits o honor VI,4: 1318b17-18), nd thewealthy ew lso seek rofits oless than honor VI,7: 1321a41-43). ndeed here sno existing olitical oci-ety where ne can find ven s many s one hundred men whohavegenuineexcellence f haracter V,1: 1302a 1-1302a3).21Thus,while he City fPrayerfor Aristotle rovides model for decidingwhat s better nd worse egisla-tion,22 isargument n Books V-VI s that he political heorist ust e able tooffer sable dvice o real governments, nd therefore ust e able to addressthe actual oncerns f those

governments.ere, herefore, ristotle raverses

ground imilar o Locke's.Finally, hetwo theorists iffer otoriously ver he naturalness f human

equality. ockemaintains hat oone has a natural ight o rule nother23sinceall humans re one species) o legitimate uling uthority an come onlyfromconsent.Aristotle rgues hat ccording o the nature f ustice, ome have amore ust claim o rule because hey re peopleofmoral xcellence nd practi-cal wisdom, nd for hese easonswilldo a better ob. Thegreatest actionalsplit s probably hat etween irtue nd depravity V,3: 1303b 14-15),butthis act urns ut to have ittle

racticalelevanceecause,

lthoughhe

peopleof excellent haracter ost deserve orule, hey re such a tiny minority hat,practically peaking, heywouldnot dream f trying o come to powerforce-fully V,1: 1301a39-b2;V, : 1304b4-6).LikeLocke's utnumbered ppressedminority, hey imply ave o endure he ituation. oreover, heywouldnotbeable to persuade rdinary eople to hand over power o them; uch a thingwouldbe even moredifficult han iguring ut the perfect ormula f distribu-tive ustice for particular ommunity. eople n powerwill not heed claims(however ell-founded heymight e) that usticerequires hem o turn vertheir

owerto other

people(VI, 3: 1318b 2-5). Thus, Aristotle, nstead f

appealing irectly oarguments asedon ustice,winds p, ikeLocke,warning

21 Aristotle ays iterally here re not 100 who are good nd well-born nd that goodbirth ndexcellencere n few. t s possible hat is point n conjoining oodbirth with oodness s tostate hat he onjunction f ctualgoodnesswith he ocietal nfluence hatwouldcome fromgoodbirth s what s rare. think t more ikely, owever, hat is reference ogoodbirth sasanaspect f complete oodness, s in the xpression well rought-up. youngster ay tart utgoodbut without oodparents isor her hance f nding p good arefar limmer.

22 Not veryone grees hatAristotle's ity f Prayer, he ity hat s best imply, rovides standardof ustice hat nables ne to udgewhat s better nd worse mong ctual egimes,f.C. Zuckert(1983);Nichols1992:144-45);Yack 1993: 168-69);Annas 1996).But ee Miller 1995:239-45),Rowe 1991),and Bradley1991)for xamples f readings hat ccordwithmine.

23 Noone, hat s,except omeonewhohasbeen ttacked ithout rovocation. n ttacker ithoutmaterial otive as abandoned hehuman pecies nd demoted imself o the ranks f viciousbeasts nd thusmay eexecuted r subjected othe esser enalty f lavery

326








Aristotle'sTheoryfRevolution

ruling roups hat f heywish o avoidbeing verthrown heymust efrain romtyrannicalxcesses.24

As for he matter fusing onsent f the governed odistinguishegitimatefrom llegitimateovernment, ristotle imself sesthevoluntariness f ubmis-sion to rule s a definitional arker hat istinguishesyrannical rom ealthyrule III, 14:1285a27, b 3, b 5, b 8, b 21; IV,10: 1295a19-23;V,10:1313a3-11).The three ealthy-i.e., on-tyrannical-regimes ad been defined s onesthat erve he public nterest ather han imply he ruler's nterest; n notingthree imes hat yranniesre regimes here he public s being uled nvolun-tarily, ristotle s indicating hat he peopledo voluntarily ubmitwhen thepublic nterest sbeing erved. hus, oluntary ubmission o the ule f notherwould ppear o be the Aristotelian ersion f whatLocke allstacit onsent ogovernment.

CONCLUSIONS

Aristotle's ritique f Phaleas ndicates hat Aristotle nderstood hat hepolitical roblem f copingwith eoplewho want more han heir air hare fthings s a problem oodeep and too broad to solve by economic echniquesalone. Its ultimate olution would have to include the Socratic remediesendorsed, or nstance,nPlato's epublic,amely, eaching oderationnd turn-ingpotential yrants oward he pleasures ffered yphilosophy. hus,Aristotlestrived o elevate olitical-life-as-he-found-it,yteaching hat he polisproperlyaims t the fostering f human xcellence. Indeed,Aristotle reats olitical ifeper e as worthy f considerably ore ignity han ocrates oes. One does notfind n Aristotle heSocratic endency o warn hat he rulyust person s bestadvised o stay way from olitics Apology1d-32a;Republic96c-e]).

Nonetheless, ristotle lso went beyond these remedies uggested yPlato.Aristotle rankly cknowledged hatno communities n fact providededucation n moderation. onsequently, e mayhavereasonablynferred hatfewwere ikely o do so in the future. oreover, ne may ntertain egitimatedoubts bout the ikelihood hat he ure of Socratic hilosophy ouldpull alarge raction f the world's otentially yrannical ulers wayfrom he temp-tations f power. t s conceivable hat Aristotle ntertained hese ery oubts.Hecertainly tated learly hat nce peoplehavepower, t s virtually mpossi-ble to succeed with urely ustice-based rguments opersuade hem o acceptchecks n their wn power VI,3: 1318b 2-5). And finally, ristotle rankly

24 WhileAristotlenitially efines yranny s the elfish ule of monarch III: 7), he later xtendsthe usage to cover elf-aggrandizinguleby any group included popularmajority) t theexpense f the rest f thepublic: xtremist ligarchiesnd extremist emocracieslike re prop-erly egarded s tyrannies: for hese appen obe tyrannies with hepower] ivided p V,10:1312b37-38).

327








PoliticalesearchQuarterly

acknowledged hatwhat he vastmajority f peoplewant from overnmentsprotection or heir roperty

Thus, n BooksV-VI fPolitics, ristotle upplemented he ocratic ptionsfor temming buses fpolitical ower y ppealing o the ow but olid groundof the rulers' elf-interest n staying n power.The core premises f the Aris-totelian eaching n sedition-essentially crime oesn't ay tory or ulers-were hen vailable or ocke'smuch ater laboration. hese n summaintainedthat governments ust void oppressing heir ubjects f they were to avoidbeing verthrown, hat evolution gainst ppressive ulerss both nevitablendnatural,25hat ecurity or roperty ouldhave central lace n the voidanceofoppression, nd that he uccumbing o the emptationsfpower n the partof ruling roups s the fundamental rovocation f revolution.

Locke in direct ontrast ithHobbes)agreedwithAristotle n distrustingthe corrupting nfluence f political ower nd thus e-worked ristotle's asicpremises oprovide n alternative o Hobbes's bsolutist olitical onclusions.Aristotle, or xample, aidof his recommended hecking f the excesses hatamount o tyranny otonly hat t willrender monarch's ule more oble ndmore nviable becausehewillbe ruling etter eople) ndwill ender he ulerhimself, f not of fine haracter, t least half-decent, ut also that heseimprovements illrender is rule longer-lastingV, 11: 1315b4-10).Locke'sre-worked eaching n revolution olds onto the longer-lasting ide of theargument, nd n effect rops herest.

What his ook at his Lockean ide can teach s readers bout Aristotle'sownpolitical hilosophy s the degree o which t paidheed to what might ecalled hehard-headed ealities. ost peoplewant rom heir olitical ommu-nities rotection or heir hysical ecurity nd for heir roperty; ersons fgenuinely xcellent haracter re so exceedingly are hat heywillhardly verbe in power; hepossessing f powerhas a wayof corrupting hosewho rule.WhileAristotle id see the need to attend o these ealities, e, in contrast oLocke, efused odecomplicate ispolitical heory, o focus lmost xclusivelyon the readily redictable. n Aristotle's heory unlike Locke's)the humanyearning or obility f character, hehuman esire o be a goodand respect-worthy erson nd to be surrounded y such people, nd the craving or

25Keyt's xplicationstutely ikens evolution odeath f regime nd remarks hat death ssome-times ustly mposed enalty Keyt 999:xiv-xv). evolution,necould dd, s the natural ate

of a regime n the extremely iseased ondition f tyrannical xcess.BothLockeand Aristotlemake point f describing henaturalness f this utcome natural n the ense hat t s a ten-dency ntrinsic othe nature f yranny) s a wayofpreventing he onditions f xtreme iseasein the bodypolitic. ocke s more utspoken hanAristotlen emphasizing hat yrants eservewhat hey et Since yranny iolates atural ights,t sbynature ight ooverthrowt).Still, eytnotes hat n at east ne passageAristotlemplies hat esistance otyranny ssomething orthyofhonor V,10:1312a21-39;Keyt 999:xv).

328








AristotlesTheoryfRevolution

social order haracterized y ustice, do not disappear. he tension etweenthesegenuinely umanbut too-frail raits nd the traits hat haracterize hepursuit f comfortableelf-preservationemains resent n his political hilos-ophy, s do a variety f other ensions. hese would nclude hat etween heneed for wisdom nd the need for onsent; hetensions mong heneeds forfreedom, or olidarity, nd for ltimate meaning; nd the ension etween henecessary onditions f political ife-physical ecurity nd societal ommu-nity-and thehighest oals ofpolitical ife-the wisdom nd human xcellencethat re required or appinessSalkever 990:84-89).

Nonetheless, espite hese mportant ifferences, ristotle's as a politicsattentive s well to the more ase political endenciesn which ocke was aterto focus o emphatically.f governing uthorities re to behave n even half-decentways, hepolitical hilosopher eeds odevelop n argument hat s notitself ase but that an copewith he kind of base self-interest hat s all tooprevalentnhuman ffairs. ccomplishinghis s a worthy nough ask hat ris-totle evoted he goodpart f hree ooksofPoliticso t.

REFERENCES

Annas, ulia. 996. Aristotle n Human Nature nd Political irtue, eviewfMetaphysics9 (June): 31-54.Ashcraft, ichard. 986. RevolutionaryoliticsndLocke'swo reatisesfGovern-

ment. rinceton, J: rinceton niversity ress.Barker, rnest. 962. The PoliticsfAristotleTranslation ith ntroduction nd

Appendices). ewYork:Oxford niversity ress.Black,Antony. 988. TheConciliarMovement. n J. H. Burns, d., Cambridge

History fMedieval olitical hought.350-c. 450,pp. 573-87.Cambridge,MA:Cambridge niversity ress.

Bradley, .C. 1991. Aristotle'sonception f he tate, nDavidKeyt nd FredD.Miller, r., ds.,ACompanionoAristotle'solitics,p.13-56.Oxford: asilBlackwell.

Burns, .H., ed. 1988. Cambridge istory fMedieval olitical hought . 350-c. 1450.Cambridge, A:Cambridge niversity ress.

Cooper, ohn. 996. Justice nd Rights n Aristotle's olitics. eview fMeta-physics9 (June): 59-72.

Cox,Richard. 960.LockenWar nd Peace.Oxford: larendon ress.1982, Introduction. n Richard ox, d., Second reatisefGovernment,

pp. vii-xlii. rlington eights, A:Harlan avidson.Dunbabin, ean. 988. Government. n Burns, p. cit., p. 477-519.Dunn,John. 984.Locke. xford: xford niversity ress.Everson, tephen, d. 1988.ThePoliticsof Aristotle). ambridge, A: Cam-

bridge niversity ress.Gadamer, . G. 1975.Truth ndMethod. ewYork: eabury.

329









Goldwin, obert. 987. John ocke. n Leo Strauss nd Joseph ropsey, ds.,History fPolitical hilosophy,rd ed., pp. 476-511.Chicago:University fChicago ress.

Grant, uth. 987. John ocke'siberalism.hicago;University fChicago ress.Keyt, avid. 1999. Aristotle olitics ooks and VI(Translation ith Commen-

tary). xford: larendon ress.Locke, ohn. 823. First etter n Toleration, n TheWorksofJohn ocke, ol.VI.

London:Tagg t al.Locke,John. 1982.Second reatisef Government,d. Richard ox. Arlington

Heights, A:Harlan avidson.Lord, Carnes, rans. 1984. ThePoliticsof Aristotle). hicago:University f

Chicago ress.Machiavelli, iccolo. 985. The rince. hicago:University f Chicago ress.Macpherson, . B.1962.The olitical heory f ossessivendividualism:obbeso

Locke. ewYork; xford niversity ress.Meyers, enry A., with HerwigWolfram. 982. Medieval ingship. hicago:

Nelson-Hall.Miller, red D. 1995. Nature, usticend Rightsn Aristotle'solitics. xford:

Clarendon ress.. 1996. Aristotle nd the Origins of Natural Rights, Review f Meta-

physics9 (June): 73-907.Mulgan, . G. 1977.Aristotle'solitical heory. xford: larendon ress.Nelson, anet. 988. Kingshipnd Empire. n Burns, p cit., p. 211-51.Nichols,Mary P 1992. Citizens nd Statesmen: Study f Aristotle's olitics.

Lanham,MD: Rowman Littlefield.Polansky, onald. 991. Aristotle n Political hange. n DavidKeyt nd Fred

D. Miller, r., ds.,A CompanionoAristotle'solitics, p.323-45.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.

Procope, ohn. 988. Greek nd Roman olitical heory. n Burns, p. cit., p.21-36.

Reeve, . D. C., trans. 998. PoliticsofAristotle).ndianapolis,N:Hackett.Rowe,Christopher. 991. Aims nd Methods n Aristotle's olitics. n David

Keyt nd FredD. Miller, r., ds.,A CompanionoAristotle'solitics, p. 57-74. Oxford: asil Blackwell.

Salkever, tephen. 990.FindingheMean:TheoryndPracticenAristotelianhi-losophy.rinceton, J: rinceton niversity ress.

Simmons, .John. 993. Onthe dge f Anarchy:ocke, onsent, ndthe imits fSociety. rinceton, J: rinceton niversity ress.

Simpson, eter . Phillips, rans. 997. ThePoliticsfAristotle.hapelHill:Uni-versity fNorth arolina ress.

Strauss, eo. 1953. Natural ight nd History. hicago:University f ChicagoPress.

330








Aristotle'sTheoryfRevolution

Tarcov, athan. 981. Locke's econd reatise nd the Best encegainst

ebel-lion.' ReviewfPolitics3 (April): 98-217.

Vincent, ndrew. 987. Theoriesf he tate. xford: asilBlackwell.Yack,Bernard. 993.TheProblemsf Political nimal ommunity,usticend

Conflictn Aristotelian olitical hought. erkeley: niversity f CaliforniaPress.

Zuckert, atherine . 1983. Aristotle n the Limits nd Satisfactions f Politi-cal Life. nterpretation1: 185-206.

Zuckert, ichael. 994.Natural ightsnd heNewRepublicanism.rinceton ni-versity ress.

Received:March , 2000Accepted or ublication: ctober , [email protected]

331

Aristotle and Locke on revolution.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Aristotle and Locke on revolution.pdf